New Inflow: Russian Company Claims LENR Success

Thanks to Max Nozin for posting a link to a Russian company called New Inflow which was founded in 2009, and since then have been carrying out both theoretical and experimental research in the LENR field.

The company’s website is published in Russian and English here:

The website states:

Company’s currently held experiments are based on generation of plasmoid formations in swirling gas flow which are created by various impulse-modulated discharges and subsequent utilization of generated heat.

Experimental laboratory setups are developed and simulated with the help of new mathematical models and methods.

As of today, the following main results in the LENR area were achieved by the “New Inflow” company:

  • LENR effects were confirmed in several lab experiments. This fact is consistently proved by conducted measurements using up to date diagnostic equipment;
  • heat COP of devices created in “New Inflow” is 600% to 800%;
  • results of chemical elements transformation are also obtained;
  • devices created in the “New Inflow” may run on a wide range of materials, and are not limited to costly ones such as Pd and Ni.

The following paper has been apparently written by people associated with this company. “High effective heterogeneous plasma vortex reactor for production of heat energy and hydrogen” published here

  • georgehants

    Wonderful to see our Russian friends progressing with Cold Fusion while the West continues to put out insane propaganda to blame them for such ridiculous crimes as assassinating ancient irrelevant spy’s with Russian made nerve gas.
    The crude attempts by the capitalist West to try and control the World is laughable.

    • Mylan

      Astonishing how much you hate the world you live in.

      • georgehants

        Mylan, your reply in no way reflects what I have written but your own prejudices.

      • Jas

        There is a lot to hate.

    • Gerard McEk

      George, you go a bit too far now. Why would the UK government assesinate a former Russian/UK dubbel spy when they first did exchange with a Russian spy him to get him in the UK? Why would they make such a fuss? Just to irritate Putin? Seems unlikely to me.

      • georgehants

        Gerard, I think your reply could be compared to the 95% of highly qualified scientists who declared that Cold Fusion was and for many still is impossible.

        • Nonsense. Gerard’s reply can, in no way, be compared with the Hot Fusion lynch mob who ended F&P’s careers to protect their own funding. Why, after all, would the UK government assassinate a spy they had already “paid for” by exchanging him for more valuable Russian spies? Remember that the Russians already have “form” for this type of crime – the poisoning by Polonium-210 of Alexander Litvinenko in late 2006 for one example among several.

          Granted, these crimes might have been carried out by a rogue element of the former KGB, bent on carrying out the original motto of SMERSH – “Death to Spies”. See I suspect that Putin knows all about those operations – but not officially!

          Let’s realise that there are many different Russias, ranging from Putin’s high stakes eyeball-to-eyeball-with-the-West one all the way to the descendents of the stoical Soviet peasants who died by the millions defeating HItler. Somewhere in the middle are people like Parkimov, who quietly beaver away in dingy apartments to help sustain the well deserved reputation among Russian Physicists for excellence. Certainly, if those amazing people are the ones that George would like to call our friends, then I’d wholeheartedly agree with him there. But let’s leave out the psychopathic killers.

  • Axil Axil

    Take note: “It is important to note that high value of COP=2÷10 was obtained in this PVR namely. The value COP = 0.5÷0.7< 1 was obtained in a straight gas flow (non-swirl flow). So, swirl flow plays an important role in obtaining high COP in PVR."

    In the A.L. Shishkin paper

    Rotation of various metal disks produces strange radiation.

    • Dr. Mike

      This is an interesting observation.

  • Dr. Mike

    I scanned the published paper, but have not had the time to review the supporting papers, which seem to be critical to understanding what is going on in these experiments. The water vapor plus high power electrical pulses used in the experiments are two of the components in Mills’ work on forming hydrinos.

  • Russians cannot be trusted.

    • georgehants

      LENR G are you implying that Americans can be “trusted” more?

      • I am referring to the obvious. The Russian state has embarked on a massive disinformation/psy ops campaign against the West.

        My guess is that science/energy is involved.

        • georgehants

          LENR G, if you take the time to watch RT television you will find they report nothing but the checkable proof about the West.
          Regarding Cold Fusion Research, that also is easily checkable from future Research and “guesses” do not come into it.

          • Take it up with the FBI, CIA and the rest of the Intel Community. There is no doubt about what is happening.

          • georgehants

            LENR G, are you suggesting these people speak the Truth?
            A little Research into their History may help you.

          • Are you implying you don’t understand my statement?

          • georgehants

            LENR G, I fully understand it and answer with Facts, now you try to divert the conversation which is the normal tactic once trapped.

          • You didn’t answer with facts. You asked me a question, which surely had to be rhetorical.

          • georgehants

            LENR G, lets go round in circles to avoid the Facts I answered you with below and above.
            “A little Research into their History may help you.
            Google is a good place to start allowing for their censorship.”

          • causal observer

            Words lie. No verbal expression correctly represents the referenced phenomena. Certainty and “Facts” lead to 5 year plans.

          • psi2u2

            I just want to say that this was a fascinating exchange to read. georgehants, I am not sure of where you are in the world, but speaking as one American, I feel our country has been under attack from agents of the Russian state. This includes the fact that the Russian state is supporting a tinhorn demagogue with the emotional maturity of a 13-year old child to be the leader of the “free” world. I don’t see any idealism in that at all, only mercenary advantage of a distinctly criminal odor. So as someone who has never thought that highly of the Republican party, and thinks even less of it today than ever, I find myself really respecting a man like Bob Mueller who actually has a sense of devotion to the principles of democracy and understands what is at stake when a nation elects a confidence man to the Presidency and that confidence man is under obligation to secrets held in the hands of the Russians. That’s f* ed up any way you look at it.

          • georgehants

            Morning psi2u2, thank you for your response, “where I am in the World” is that both sides use tactics of misinformation, blame etc. to protect what they see as their best interests and until there is an unlikely change in human nature that will continue forever.
            No side is innocent and the other guilty and I react with sadness that with the certainty of nuclear destruction for the whole World, that has forced an, at times uneasy peace, for 70 years, (excluding the countries unable to defend themselves where anything goes) the opportunity has not been priority to build good relations but continues to deteriorate.
            Most all ordinary people in the World would like all countries to stand up at the UN and shout, let’s stop this childish nationalism, warmongering and act like adults and work together for a caring and sharing World.

          • Max Nozin

            Any elaborate disinformation campaign must contain mostly checkable facts otherwise you would not believe that few fakes they are targeting you with. If you respect your own intelligence, stay away from RT

        • Max Nozin

          Not only that. They allegedly financed elaborate disinformation ops to send enememy researchers down the wrong path. Tokamak is a good candidate for that role.

        • orsobubu
        • Frechette

          Did the West not finance the overthrow the duly elected President of the Ukraine by means of the so called Orange Revolution in Kiev? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

        • georgehants

          Doctor Bob, thank you for the perfect example and look at the result in deaths and suffering that continues today.

    • Max Nozin

      You are over generalizing. They are good people in general but have problem electing decent people.

      • greggoble

        Trump this America… oh what the voters did!

        Or was it a crooked russian and a crooked american in cahoots?

    • Frechette

      I’m being investigated by a certain Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, as we speak. It has come to his attention that I’m using Russian Dressing on my salad on a daily basis.

  • Max Nozin

    While it is easy to blame Russians for everything maybe it is due to our own ignorance with which we established and are supporting modern days inqusition called modern physics. Not only it ignored multiole compelling evidence but also has been actively destroying the reputation of anybody who dared to think differently
    Maybe inow it is a good time, in anticipation of O day, to revisit Correas’ work and try to to think is there anything going on that we don’t understand when conducting body is spinning in magnetic field of what is the magnetic filed itself.

    • greggoble

      In the recent Cold Fusion Now podcast, Dr. Mahadeva Srinivasan, stated that early cold fusion research in India ended in 1991; mainly due to the 1st DOE (MIT influenced) report. Eugene Mallove resigned over this report. Many say the nuclear physics group at MIT falsified data in order to protect funding. Mallove claim(ed) that the results were suppressed through an organized campaign of ridicule from mainstream physicists.

      Evidence exists the U.S. government has been continuously pursuing LENR energy technology in a concerted effort through multiple DOD labs (and NASA labs) in order to gain superb control and master utilization of LENR technology ahead of all other nations. All while clearly influencing other nations to discontinue cold fusion research.

      Future historians will determine if the negative findings in the 1st (and second) DOE cold fusion report were influenced by the DOD.

      On the matter of trust… Science prevails.

      For further reflection are the words of Louis Pasteur, in his last speech, given upon being awarded the Diamond Cross of Saint Anne from the Czar of Russia. Louis Pasteur addresses his words to the students in the crowd, his voice ringing with conviction,

      “You young men, doctors and scientists of the future, do not let your selves be tainted by a barren skepticism, nor discouraged by the sadness of certain hours that creep over nations.

      Do not become angry at your opponents, for no scientific theory has ever been accepted without opposition.

      Live in the serene peace of libraries and laboratories.

      Say to yourselves first: ‘What have I done for my instruction?’ and as you gradually advance: ‘What am I accomplishing?’ until the time comes when you may have the immense happiness of thinking that you have contributed in some way to the welfare and progress of mankind.”

      (Vallery-Radot 1901, vol. 2, pp. 297–298)

      • psi2u2

        “Future historians will determine if the (false) negative concluding remarks in the 1st (and second) DOE cold fusion report were due to influence by the DOD.”


        • TVulgaris

          I don’t think John Huizenga was influenced, apparently he was the source of most of the influence in physics circles (especially domestic) in the early years.

          • greggoble

            Huizenga would likely do most anything required to ensure the U.S. maintained technological superiority in all things related to nuclear energy. As a matter of national security he helped build Fat Boy and continued to enjoy national security clearance. Was he manipulated, in some way, to downplay the positive results in the ’89 /’90 ‘race to replicate P and F? I don;t thik it would have taken much to do so. Or, was John manipulating others when influencing them to ridicule P and F?

            We do know he had intimate knowledge of the works being done at SPAWAR by the JWK/GEC group. With his security clearance he may have also seen the
            LENR reactor developed by the SPAWAR/JWK/GEC group, the patent for this reactor was filed in 2007, sequestered till 2013.

            Yet, till the day he died, John never came out with a revised opinion about excess heat or nuclear events found in cold fusion LENR systems.

            I believe he did indeed have a revised opinion… I’m still investigating this.

            John R. Huizenga – Wikipedia

            John Robert Huizenga (April 21, 1921 – January 25, 2014) was an American physicist who Dr. Huizenga was drafted into the Manhattan Project to help build the world’s first atom bomb and who also received more recent fame for attempting to debunk Utah scientists’ claim of achieving cold fusion.

            —- The next is from the First Colloquium on Nano-Nuclear Science, l’Université catholique de Louvain 2009 which was uploaded by Lawrence Forsely to acadamia

            Lawrence P. G. Forsley

            Lawrence P. G. Forsley is president of JWK International Corporation and has been a long time collaborator and co-author with the US Navy SPAWAR-Pacific.

            Previously, he was a group leader with the Laboratory for Laser Energetics engaged in inertial confinement fusion (ICF, or, laser fusion) at the University of Rochester in Rochester, NY (USA).

            He was a consultant to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory mirror fusion program, TMX-U, in Livermore, California (USA) and a visiting scientist on the ASDEX Tokamak at the Max Planck Institut fur Plasmaphysik in Garching, Germany.

            Mr. Forsley initiated a US Navy ONR-funded program at the Naval Research Laboratory into the basic science of sonoluminescence, or light emitted from cavitating bubbles, and he observed gamma rays. Subsequently, he participated in DARPA sonofusion program reviews, including the work of Dr. Rusi Taleyarkhin.

            Dr. Jacob Jorne and Mr. Forsley conducted bulk palladium electrolysis experiments at the University of Rochester under the baleful eye of Dr. John Huizenga. In cooperation with Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. and the Naval Research Laboratory,

            Mr. Forsley and Dr. Jim Patterson developed a fluidized bed using uranium and thorium ceramics.

            For the past several years he has worked closely with Drs. Pam Mosier-Boss, Stan Szpak and Frank Gordon at SPAWAR where he has been developing and using charged particle and neutron diagnostics, and gamma ray detectors. These diagnostics temporally, spatially and spectrally resolve the nuclear emanations from palladium co-deposition experiments with high resolution cryogenically cooled germanium gamma ray detection, CR-39 solid state track detectors, witness materials, and both high resolution inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (ICP/MS) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) with x-ray flourescence analysis.

            He is an author or co-author of over 30 peer reviewed papers, book chapters, conference presentations, and, most recently, “Triple tracks in CR-39 as the result of Pd D Co-deposition: evidence of energetic neutrons” published in Naturwissenschaften

            in January, 2009. In his spare time he’s developed and deployed intelligent ground-based seismic sensors and used space-based Differential Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (DInSAR) to monitor ground deformation.


            “John R. Huizenga, Physicist at Fore of Nuclear Era, Dies at 92” New York Times By WILLIAM J. BROADJAN. 29, 2014

            John R. Huizenga, a physicist who helped build the world’s first atom bomb, solve dozens of atomic riddles and debunk claims that scientists in Utah had achieved nuclear fusion in a jar of water, died on Saturday in San Diego. He was 92.

  • Gerard McEk

    If it is true what they are writing,then they are ahead of the developments here in the West, especially in the theoretical area. Hopefully they will show a working aparatus to prove their statement soon, a COP of 6-8 is easily testable.

  • artefact

    Your heat pump just tranfers energy from one place to another. It does not create energy.

    • Colin Clarke

      My reverse cycle air conditioner has a compliance plate that says: Input energy 1200w.
      Output heat 3000w.

      • artefact

        When you try to convert the energy back from the low grade heat to electricity you will get a cop of < 1.

  • Bob Greenyer

    My mum had an air source water heater heat pump too – needed temp of air to be above 5ºC to have any gain and would never work in space (not that that is a concern for most people). Though it did seem to fail quite often and there were not many service engineers.

  • Engineer48

    No need to go to Russia. The US NAVY SPAWAR has a nice LENR patent: from 2013:

    Should be fairly easy for MFMP or others to replicate.

    US NAVY seeks to license their LENR tech and to engage in collaborative research:

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Interesting that this patent mentions the particle and radiation, but does not specifically mention the excess heat. This is the most detailed description of how to replicate F&P’s discovery. Have others duplicated it?

    • greggoble

      Led me to this…

    • causal observer

      I wonder how much response Techlink’s solicitation is getting.

      • Engineer48

        Hi CO,

        More to the point why is the US NAVY now releasing this tech, looking to license it and being interested in doing on going research with the licensee?

        Something has changed.

        • causal observer

          Hi E48, do you have information on when the article was posted? It could be in response to Rossi or to the general heating up (pun intended) of the LENR space (more puns). International competition comes to mind. USA does not have *official* “industrial policy” like China, Japan and others, so techlink might be the most they can do – above board. It certainly is an explicit sign that the Navy thinks they think they have something to share and that they are not afraid of being embarrassed about it not working.

  • artefact

    But try to create electricity with the low level heat and calculate cop after that.
    I agree it is a good solution for the purpose of low level heating. I also have one but only with a cop of 3.8

    • scottlshman


      “Engineers at the United Technologies Research Center (UTRC), a unit of United Technologies based in East Hartford, CT, say they have developed a low-cost system that can utilize low-temperature geothermal resources. The technology could be particularly useful in generating electricity from waste hot water generated at oil and gas wells.

      The modular, 200-kilowatt power plant from UTRC can convert temperatures as low as 165 °F into electricity. The technology is similar to steam engines, except that steam or hot water vaporizes a hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant that drives the turbine. And the refrigerant has a lower boiling point than water.”


  • greggoble


    In Kievan Rus and Muscovy, legal systems usually referred to slaves as kholopy. A kholop’s master had unlimited power over his life: he could kill him, sell him, or use him as payment upon a debt. The master, however, had responsibility before the law for his kholop’s actions. Individuals could become kholop as a result of capture, selling themselves, being sold for debts, committing crimes, or marriage to a kholop. Until the late 10th century, the kholopy represented a majority among the servants who worked lords’ lands.

    The Russian lands continued in their historic function as a source of slaves for outsiders.[1] For example, in 1382 the Golden Horde under Khan Tokhtamysh sacked Moscow, burning the city and carrying off thousands of inhabitants as slaves; similar raids occurred routinely until well into the 16th century.[2] In 1521, the combined forces of Crimean Khan Mehmed I Giray and his Kazan allies attacked Moscow and captured thousands of slaves.[3][4] In 1571, the Crimean Tatars attacked and sacked Moscow, burning everything but the Kremlin and taking thousands of captives as slaves.[5] In Crimea, about 75% of the population consisted of slaves.[6] Crimean–Nogai raids into East Slavic lands continued into the 18th century.

    Russian slavery did not have racial restrictions. Russian girls were legally allowed to be sold in Russian controlled Novgorod to Tatars from Kazan in the 1600s by Russian law. Germans, Poles, and Lithuanians were allowed to be sold to Crimean Tatars in Moscow. In 1665 Tatars were allowed to buy from the Russians, Polish and Lithuanian slaves. Before 1649 Russians could be sold to Muslims under Russian law in Moscow. This contrasted with other places in Europe outside Russia where Muslims were not allowed to own Christians.[7]

    Anonymous Lithuanian author wrote in De moribus tartarorum, lituanorum et moscorum:

    Among these unfortunates there are many strong ones; if they [the Tatars] have not castrated them yet, they cut off their ears and nostrils, burned cheeks and foreheads with the burning iron and forced them to work with their chains and shackles during the daylight, and sit in the prisons during the night; they are sustained by the meager food consisting of the dead animals’ meat, rotten, full of worms, which even a dog would not eat. The youngest women are kept for wanton pleasures….[8]

    By the sixteenth century, the slave population of the Grand Duchy of Moscow consisted mostly of those who had sold themselves into slavery owing to poverty.[9] They worked predominantly as household servants, among the richest families, and indeed generally produced less than they consumed.[10] Laws forbade slaveowners to free slaves in times of famine in order to avoid feeding them, and slaves generally remained with their owning family for a long time; the Domostroy, an advice book, speaks of the need to choose slaves of good character and to provide for them properly.[11] Slavery remained a major institution in Russia until 1723, when Peter the Great converted the household slaves into house serfs. The government of Tsar Feodor III had formally converted Russian agricultural slaves into serfs earlier, in 1679.[9][12]

    Indigenous peoples of Siberia – notably the Yakuts and the Buryats of Eastern Siberia – practised slavery on a small scale.[13] With the conquest of Siberia in the 16th and 17th centuries, Russians enslaved natives in military operations and in Cossack raids.[13] Cases involving native women were frequent, hold as concubines, sometimes mortgaged to other men and traded for commercial profit.[13] The Russian government generally opposed the conversion of natives to Christianity because it would free them from paying the yasak, the fur tribute.[13] The government decreed that the non-Christian slaves were to be freed.[13] This in turn led local Russian owners of slaves to petition the government for conversion and even involved forced conversions of their slaves.[13] The rules stipulated that the native convert became a serf of the converter.[13] As an indication of the extent of the slavery system, one voyevoda reported in 1712 that “there is hardly a Cossack in Yakutsk who does not have natives as slaves”.[13]

    Russian conquest of the Caucasus led to the abolition of slavery by the 1860s[14][15] and the conquest of the Central Asian Islamic khanates of Bukhara, Samarkand, and Khiva by the 1870s.[16] The Russian administration liberated the slaves of the Kazakhs in 1859.[17] A notorious slave market for captured Russian and Persian slaves was centred in the Khanate of Khiva from the 17th to the 19th century.[18] [19] At the beginning of the 21st century Chechens and Ingush kept Russian captives as slaves or in slave-like conditions in the mountains of the northern Caucasus.[20]

    Recent[when?] reports have identified human trafficking and slavery of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan nationals in contemporary Russian society.[21][22][23][24]

  • Ged

    More dusty plasma LENR reactors?

  • Bob Greenyer

    LION – is it the basis for a billion dollar + industry that could save lives?

    If the recent analysis of the LION 2 reactor proves valid, especially in context of other research in the field, derivatives might be able to produce industrially important elements as well as deal with some of the most toxic fission products that are threatening the pacific.

    • John Littlemist

      Frank, new article for this, please!

    • Axil Axil

      Miley and Hora have a theory about how quarks condense.


      Low Energy Nuclear Reactions resulting as picometer
      interactions with similarity to K-shell electron capture

      The distribution of elements depend on a Measured standard abundance distribution of the elements (SAD) in the Universe where the line follows the exponential Boltzmann dependence

      R(n) = 3^n

      Where this distribution defines the magic numbers of protons and neutrons in elements. The formation of elements in the early universe from a quark plasma is determined by this SAD distribution as free quarks came together to form elements.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Magic numbers are important to stability. More stable nuclei are, the more likely they are to survive.

        • Axil Axil

          I did not say it explicitly in the last post but the packing that you intuit is based on the need for free quarks to group in clusters of 3 to form protons and neutrons. Most of the quarks that are liberated by the LENR reaction escape the reaction zone as mesons, namely muons, but the quarks that remain form new elements via the SAD distribution.

          • causal observer

            This has been a helpful series of posts.

        • Axil Axil

          This is why nickel is being used for LENR structures because it is the most resistant to the LENR reaction when it gets to Ni62 and Ni64.

    • Axil Axil

      Purcell effect

      For particle physicists whose entire standard model assumes that decay rates cannot be influenced by external factors, the Purcell effect is a puzzle.

      The Purcell effect is a condition that has perplexed science which lays smack dab in the middle of one of the miracles of the LENR reaction. In science, It has long been asserted that nuclear decay rates are constant and cannot be affected by anything.

      Old textbook knowledge reconfirmed: Decay rates of radioactive substances are constant

      This assertion has been used by the critics of the LENR reaction to undercut the validity of what experiments have shown when the LENR reaction was in progress.

      But the Purcell effect discounts the logic of this LENR criticism. The Purcell effect states that the decay rate of a radioactive isotope is affected by light trapped in an optical cavity. This nuclear decay rate can either increase or decrease by a factor up to 50 times.

      Controlling the Rate of Nuclear Decay

      The maximum effect is achieved when a dark mode of light emissions from the optical cavity is achieved. This mode is when light is maintained inside the cavity and does not radiate out. An important condition that must exist in both the LENR reaction and the Purcell effect is that this effect exists in nano-cavities in metal.

      But what is more disconcerting is that the nuclear decay rate can either increase or decrease by a factor of 50.

      There is something that exists in an optical cavity that can affect nuclear processes. What can it be and how does it do it.

      Well it is our old LENR friend, the Surface Plasmon Polariton (SPP). The SPP can produce nuclear effects and does it best when it is in dark mode. But how can the SPP stop a radioactive isotope from decaying?

      The SPP is formed by two counter rotating currents of polaritons. These currents are polarized in terms of handedness. Right-handed particles don’t decay, only left-handed particles decay.

      Particle physics: Only left-handed particles decay

      When a radioactive nucleus is converted by the SPP into a right handed particle, it cannot decay. But when the nucleus is converted by the SPP into a left handed particle, it decays so fast that the radioactive nucleus stabilizes immediately.

      The chirality of particles explains how LENR can stabilize radioactive waste. LENR is all about the handedness (chirality) of particles.

    • Axil Axil

      The formation of left handed photons produce an accelerated isotope nuclear decay rate. This is best done via the interaction of light with nanoparticles. The mechanism uses light to catalyzes surface plasmon polaritons that polarize magnetism as left handed.

      I reference nanoplasmonic based experiments here to show how the confinement of polaritons on the surface of gold nanoparticles: a nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission without neutrons. This shows that strong EMF concentration and polarization cause by nanoparticles is a central part of the LENR reaction.

      Laser irradiation of uranium salts without nanoparticles have no effect on nuclear decay rates of radioactive isotopes.

      See references:,d.dmQ

      An experiment that uses light irradiating nanoparticles might work instead of laser light to induce the transmutation process.

      An intense LED light source which irradiates as solution of tungsten nanoparticles in either water or heavy water might generate platinum as per you explanation of the transmutation process.

      There may also be some production of gold seen.

    • artefact
    • Da Phys


      Very interesting finding, well done. I’m one of those who believe that the understanding of LENR goes through the understanding of the transmutation pattern.

      I admit that I don’t understand your sentence “It appears the reaction has not progressed beyond Fe which is unsurprising given the amount of Mn still available.” I don’t understand why this would be unsurprising given that Kanthal has much more Fe than Cr. Do you suggest that the reaction is somewhat selective and would privilege Cr over Fe? Can you elaborate on that? Thank you.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Well done, Bob – this is a useful overview. I appreciate your consideration of the existing literature and the fact that you are getting more cautious in your conclusions.

      Since I do not have much time at the moment, just one thought: The “LION” results might be difficult to replicate because in the original experiment the quartz tube had been broken, so that the device could not work in the intended way. So basically, one would have to reproduce this ‘failure mode’– which seems hardly possible to do in a controlled manner. Perhaps one would need a completely different setup to get reliable results, especially if electrochemical processes due to current leaks between the coils were in play.

      • Bob Greenyer

        We have bought Chromium metal and advised LION and Alan Smith to do the same.

    • Stephen

      A facinating read. Thanks for that Bob.

      I wonder if you have ever taken s look at Norman Cooks book on Nuclear Structure. The first half of that book is before he gets deeply into his lattice model is a very good and strong analysis of theory strengths and weaknesses of various existing models of nuclear structure and experimental data. The graph of nuclear density reminded me of some of the analysis reported there.

      I find a lot of interesting commonality between Norman Cooks ideas in the lattice model and Stoyan Sargs models. Especially if we think beyond the idea of particles as billiard balls but rather as localized concentrations of energy expressed in some kind of lattice like parameter space that may be dimensioned spatially but also maybe dimensioned mathematically in other parameter spaces such as energy, frequency, spin, time etc.

      I wonder if there are other energy transfer quanta other than photons that can account for changes in energy levels in nucleons. Is this what Carl Oscar Gulstrom does with his sigma meson interactions and Nucleon pairs by starting from a standard model view point.

      I found your points about proton ejection really interesting. It seems to fit really interesting.

      Your Neutron star comment definitely gets me wondering. This could be really curious if followed through… my mind now is full of questions thinking could this play a part in the solar wind… if so is a rain of dusty particles falling through the solar corona and interacting and transmuting there generating the solar wind? What does this mean regarding the hydrogen isotope abundance in the interstellar medium if the process is pumping protons hydrogen out into that medium. It would be an important factor in Netron Star formation in super nova. I would bet there are signatures that could be looked for in the spectral signatures of super nova. I wonder how it would theoretically impact Black holes production. I wonder what Stephen Hawing would have made of that process… fascinating.

      Fundementaly this really seems to me to throw up a question with the R process explanation for heavy particle production. We need an excess of neutrons to form heavy nuclei. The proton chain as occurs in the sun etc does not produce more neutrons than protons. Proton ejection does to me seem a viable explanation.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Stephen Hawking is mentioned in ‘O Day’

  • Axil Axil

    Biological transmutation shows that the root or most basic LENR reaction does not produce heat. But the LENR reaction can be comprised of multiple reactive layers. There exist a layer that can transform the flow of LENR based energy into heat. Even in biological transmutation, the LENR reaction produces muons. But muon emissions are not harmful to living systems because the light elements that compose living systems do not absorb muons to any substantive dehree.

    The reactive layer that transforms LENR energy unto heat involves superconductivity and bose condensation. Superconductivity is duel to black holes.

    If you are into deep theory, look at these 4 hours of info

    The natural state of the Surface plasmon polariton, a major catalyst for the LENR reaction, is Bose condensation. Also the Ultra dense hydrogen compounds are superconductive. This reactive layer re-formats LENR energy into heat. Since the Bose condensate acts as a black hole, one way in which energy escapes from the condensate is hawking radiation. This radiation is formatted as heat. The 1 ev heat spectrum that Rossi is seeing is coming from hawking radiation. The condensate also produces light who frequency is a function of the density of the SPP population. This is why the QX reactor glows red at low power, yellow and medium power and blue at full power.

    The layering of LENR functionality is like a complex program comprised of layers or hierarchical organization with subroutines or in object programming : layered objects.

    The layering in LENR goes as follows:

    layer 0 or the root layer: weak force neuclon decay.

    Layer 1: chiral magnetic field production

    Layer 1: Biological production of chiral magnetism through organic chemistry.

    Layer 2: SPP produces layer 1 from heat and other EMF

    Layer 3: Ultra dense hydrogen: produces SPP and heat

    Layer 3: Nanoparticles and light: produces SPP and heat.

    Layer 3 : Bose condensation: produces SPP and heat.

    Layer 4: rough surface: produces UDH if fuel is produced(Rossi, LION) or SPP with Bose condensation (Muzuno, Piantelli).

    • Bob Greenyer

      You are on target in places… you will find ‘O Day’ easier to accept than most – I think as more analysis and data is presented you will be able to iterate quite fast.

      • causal observer

        Bob, re: “you will find ‘O Day’ easier to accept than most”.

        The key phrase here is “to accept”.

        That indicates to me that a) you believe you have some system of estimating other people’s ability to learn, b) you believe you have some special type of intelligence that is particularly rare, and/or c) that ‘O Day’ will not provide a complete analytic view but instead will have explanatory gaps that will need to be filled in with intuitive leaps.

        If ‘O Day’ does have such explanatory gaps, then its propagation will be limited by the number of people who are i) able to fill in the explanatory gaps, ii) willing to invest the time and energy to do so, and iii) able to translate their intuitions into engineering resources to actually produce fully analyzable results. In which case ‘O Day’s contribution will be very limited.

        Since it is very likely that ‘O Day’ will not provide a complete analytic view (because people will have to “accept” it, if they are so fortunate to be able to), perhaps you should consider the impression that you make based on a) and b).

        • Bob Greenyer

          The truth is the truth regardless of if people believe it, it is testable for those that choose to test.

          We are, to a certain extent, in ‘O Day’, people are understanding as the analysis is pulled together, packaged and progressively disseminated. The main presentation will be the keystone but I want to be sure that there is enough background for people to get it on first exposure.

          My reason for working this the way I am, is that it is a personal realisation that I want to ensure it cannot be patented and there are many aspects that could be patented.

          I do not worry about my reputation – I can still produce kick-ass graphics and visualisations to earn a crust if the community were to outcast me as a heretic amongst heretics, I can still grow my own vegetables and help others that want to be helped, life will go on and the blip that was my life will pass into insignificance and obscurity – I don’t have a tenure to loose, a pension to be withheld etc. My life does not depend on people liking what I have to say in ‘O Day’. I actually don’t care about me, I don’t care if I am wrong, only if I am right and that the realisation and then subsequently discovered supporting information is placed in the public domain for it to be considered. Where things are wrong, they will prove unverifiable – so be it.

          To worry about self is to assume ego. ‘O Day’ is about something that cannot and should not be owned.

          I do not under estimate peoples ability to learn, I have witnessed a very high degree of peoples inability to accept. Through trial ballooning conceptual compartmentalised subsets of ‘O Day’ with a diverse group of people from different nationalities, I am learning myself how best to present the core information. I am trying to answer questions before ‘O Day’ in the series of presentations I am producing.

          If it is the truth, it will be obvious when presented, even then, many people will have a selection of reasons to hate it and that is why I think there will be barriers to acceptance.

          Some people, like Axil, Musical Hemispheres, Stephen, Artefact and George Hants (and others) are proving that they will be able to get it on first pass – and very likely build on it, because they will have, by now, read around the subject based on the clues given in context of the wider LENR field and they may not even realise they are equipped to know the answer already.

          Nothing would give me more happiness that to see someone come to the same realisation before ‘O Day’.

          If my realisation is wrong, so be it. But you will have the opportunity to judge.

          • causal observer

            You need to look at this from the longer term view. ‘O Day’ is not an end. It’s hopefully a beginning.
            Think about it like compound interest. A few adjustments in your presentation style could make a lot of difference in the long run.

            You frame it as a cognitive problem. And it is. But it’s much bigger than who gets it first. What is important is how far and fast it can produce wider cognitions. However, you are not accounting for the impact of your style on the cognitive results.
            Why do you draw a boundary around the network of causation there? Obviously, because you choose to. Who is the chooser if not your ego?

            If it requires some special intelligence or intellectual gifs to “get it”, then it is effectively not real. It’s a cult.

            It took me about 20 minutes to sketch out Axil’s model. It’s just systems analysis. There are tens of thousands of people who are capable of doing that.

            Since you do not deny it, then I assume that it will require intuitive leaps. Therefore it will require both analysis AND promotion. Therefore, your reputation will be an important part of the propagation equation.

            How is the language that you use now going to affect people’s receptivity when you make presentations later?
            “I like what he’s saying, however, I wonder if he thinks he’s smarter than everyone else.”

            Your posts have persuaded me that there is very likely something interesting going on there.

            You need to stop acting like a self-sacrificing outsider weirdo and start thinking of yourself as someone who will be driving the ball forward for years to come. Or were you planning to publish and then build a cult?

            Think speaker’s fees, Bob. Not for the fame or profit, but because they are the sign of propagation.

            I won’t judge it. I’ll diagram it. That will directly add to the propagation.

          • georgehants

            causal observer, Bob has explained clearly his position which explains every aspect of his position.
            I do not think it is for you or anybody to be telling him what “he should do” this is not a dumb science page where only misplaced Ego and Fee’s are important.
            If Bob’s presentation contains verifiable information, then only the complete incompetence and stupidity of others will delay any benefits from progressing.
            And we all know just home incompetent etc. the vast majority of establishment science is and how Greed can delay advancement for many years.

          • causal observer

            “every aspect of his thinking…”
            Except the parts I point to.

          • Musical Hemispheres

            Hello Casual Observer, I like the discussion about “accepting”. It is very fundamental.
            If I may chime in with an observation: I think it comes down to the, probably, vast implications of Bob’s realization. Throughout our history there have arisen new insights that were shaking people’s world view (and their intellectual authority and/or job security) to such a degree that many just could not accept it. This has nothing to do with judging people’s intelligence.
            On this page about Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”

            it is described nicely:
            “In any community of scientists, Kuhn states, there are some individuals who are bolder than most. These scientists, judging that a crisis exists, embark on what Kuhn calls revolutionary science, exploring alternatives to long-held, obvious-seeming assumptions. Occasionally this generates a rival to the established framework of thought. The new candidate paradigm will appear to be accompanied by numerous anomalies, partly because it is still so new and incomplete. The majority of the scientific community will oppose any conceptual change, and, Kuhn emphasizes, so they should. To fulfill its potential, a scientific community needs to contain both individuals who are bold and individuals who are conservative.

            There’s a lot more on this page, but I’ll leave it at this.

          • greggoble

            Overall I cannot fully understand the many and varied personalities that exist everywhere I turn… Bob Greenyer, casual oserver, georgehants, Musical Hemispheres and more… All have nearly incomprehensible styles… Yet each do add to my wee bit of personal understanding… In theory at least.

          • georgehants

            Morning Bob, Wonderful day, thanks for giving your clear view which contains many Wonderful thoughts, but well beyond the understanding of many in this sad capitalist society.
            Good luck now and for “O” day but as you say you can do no more and it is up to others to open their minds, assuming of course that your realisation is sustainable.
            Best wishes come with my Hope that you have realised things momentous.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks George.

            My realisation has very expansive implications and so necessarily it covers many areas. My next presentation, though much more brief, will build on the last and may necessarily include an extraordinary claim as part of the argument that will be controversial.

          • georgehants

            Wonderful, always remember that “extraordinary claims” do not require extraordinary proof, there are many people who have and do personally believe that there is much more to our reality than nuts and bolts.

          • Engineer48

            Hi George,

            With respect, BS.

            Theory needs to be experimentally proven.

          • georgehants

            Engineer48, please read comments before insulting, nowhere did I imply that all theory’s, etc. do not need to be proven

          • Engineer48

            Hi George,

            Where did I insult?

            Theory MUST BE PROVEN by independent experimental data.

            If not such theory is only faith and not fact.

          • georgehants

            Engineer48 you seem to be one of those people who cannot except being wrong, nowhere in my comment did I imply that all theoy’s etc must not be proven, your calling what I wrote BS is an insult.
            Now you have just repeated the same obvious mistake, as if you are right.

          • Carl Wilson

            “accept”, not “except”

          • georgehants

            Thank you Carl, ha

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bob,

            Scientific progress is based on theory being proven by experimental data.

            Will MFMP engage the process to prove your O Day theory?

            Proclaiming theory as self evident is not proof. It is only a proclaimation of faith.

            For theory to be proven requires it to be subjected to falsifiable experimental data. If it can’t be exposed to falsifiable testing then it can’t be tested and is a faith theory.


            What will Stan Pons think of O Day?

          • causal observer

            Go for it, Bob.

          • causal observer

            “it is testable for those that choose to test.”
            …if you provide a replication formula that produces more than output that only points to things that have to be “accepted”.

      • greggoble


        It took me days… many times listening to this while doing chores. Somewhere in my mind I’m beginning to glimpse understanding… in my layman’s way.

        I understand biological transmutation of elements as sort of a miniature nano atomic magnetic cyclotron taking place within the mitochondria of cells.

        Might this transmutation of elements be the source of metabolic energy… Sometime someplace within a living organism!

        Consider this Wikipedia definition:

        Mitochondria function. The most prominent roles of mitochondria are to produce the energy currency of the cell, ATP (i.e., phosphorylation of ADP), through respiration, and to regulate cellular metabolism. The central set of reactions involved in ATP production are collectively known as the citric acid cycle, or the Krebs cycle.

        Or is there more to it…

        Does LENR, in any way, at times contribute to biological metabolism?

    • Carl Wilson

      You say:
      “Biological transmutation shows that the root or most basic LENR reaction does not produce heat.”
      Are you sure about what “biological transmutation” might due under certain circumstance? See Wikipedia article “Spontaneous human combustion”.

  • georgehants

    Morning Bob, on “O” day, Allowing for all the other realisations do you think there will be enough information for others to quickly be able to start to build Cold Fusion devices of a practicle nature?

  • stuart

    An interesting presentation on infinite open energy systems…